Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent profile; the description adds context by mentioning Snov.io email enrichment (external dependency), noting the job title is 'current' (freshness), and listing the output data. It does not disclose rate limits or unknown-email handling, which are minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a concrete example, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundant details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives sufficient purpose, input, and output information. The only gap is pre-emptive guidance on empty/failed lookups, which is a minor omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly described, so the description need not compensate. The example reinforces the format of _apKey but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states the specific action — looking up a person behind an email address — and enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, employer, industry, location, social profiles). This clearly distinguishes it from domain-level siblings like snov_domain_search and snov_domain_email_count.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use case is explicit: provide an email address to identify the person behind it. The description does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool when given an email.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.